News Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion Thread IV

[ferball]

So please stop with this inane idea the jabs are NOT unsafe.

It helps your argument to be consistent btw. or at least to use English right and proper like.

Let’s assume you are correct.
Given the urgency at the time, mRNA Vaccine technology was the fastest route to market.

It wasn't even the first candidate on the market. But I think the last two words in your sentence do illustrate the problem.

Govt rightly accelerated development AND saved lives.

The government didn't do jack shit in terms of accelerated development.

And as I demonstrated we now know the jab is 99.999% safe so your protestations are meaningless.

How did you demonstrate it?

You didn't provide any actual evidence just a bunch of figures that you could have pulled out of your arse and that certainly don't match worldwide studies on real people post vaccination by credible organisations including their insurance providers. (Ok "credible" organisations if we're referring to insurance providers.)

 

[No SPIN]

It helps your argument to be consistent btw. or at least to use English right and proper like.



It wasn't even the first candidate on the market. But I think the last two words in your sentence do illustrate the problem.




The government didn't do jack s**t in terms of accelerated development.



How did you demonstrate it?

You didn't provide any actual evidence just a bunch of figures that you could have pulled out of your arse and that certainly don't match worldwide studies on real people post vaccination by credible organisations including their insurance providers. (Ok "credible" organisations if we're referring to insurance providers.)

Stop being a flog - I don’t make up numbers.

Study below - 12.6/million for Pfizer and 35.6 Moderna. I said 12-26/mill but it’s actually 13-36/mill.

Risk of rare heart inflammation may be higher after Moderna than Pfizer COVID vaccine

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Government - US as an example gave huge sums of money to accelerate development of Vaccines. Eg Operation Warp Speed which cost $US18 Billion.

 

[No SPIN]

anecdotal?
My experience might differ greatly from yours.

For instance the experience of Doctors from Uttar Pradesh using professor borodys protocol, an Australian mind you, achieved greater results, now their anecdotal evidence is now clearly backed by statistics.

The link you provided was anecdotal evidence.

 

[North1411]

Stop being a flog - I don’t make up numbers.

Study below - 12.6/million for Pfizer and 35.6 Moderna. I said 12-26/mill but it’s actually 13-36/mill.

Risk of rare heart inflammation may be higher after Moderna than Pfizer COVID vaccine

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Government - US especially gave huge sums of money to accelerate development of Vaccines. Eg Operation Warp Speed which cost $US18 Billion.

Where does 99.9999% come from when the pharmaceutical companies don't track adverese reactions. I guess if you just pretend adverse events don't exist and you don't record them when they do occur you do get studies that have a safety record of 99.9999%.

Also ignore all data that goes against your narative and boom you have the modern day scientific method.

 

[No SPIN]

Where does 99.9999% come from when the pharmaceutical companies don't track adverese reactions. I guess if you just pretend adverse events don't exist and you don't record them when they do occur you do get studies that have a safety record of 99.9999%.

Also ignore all data that goes against your narative and boom you have the modern day scientific method.

It’s not 99,9999%.
I said 99,999% it’s actually 99,9965 %.
35 per million means 999,965 unaffected people which is 99.9965% safety.

You are incorrect - Drug companies are by law compelled to track adverse reaction under what’s called Pharmacovigilance Programs.

 

[North1411]

It’s not 99,9999%.
I said 99,999% it’s actually 99,9965 %.
35 per million means 999,965 unaffected people which is 99.9965% safety.

And they are your figures gathered with what data?

 

[No SPIN]

And they are your figures gathered with what data?

I linked the study - take some time to read it.

 

[North1411]

I linked the study - take some time to read it.

One study that used a 21 day window of hospital admissions after the 2nd dose of pfizer and moderna for myocarditis and pericarditis. Assumes that all adverse events were recorded, and that no other adverse events could occur. Its an average study, not one that can claim a safety record of 99.9965%.

Maybe read the acutal study the article you posted referenced properly

 

[No SPIN]

One study that used a 21 day window of hospital admissions after the 2nd dose of pfizer and moderna for myocarditis and pericarditis. Assumes that all adverse events were recorded, and that no other adverse events could occur. Its an average study, not one that can claim a safety record of 99.9965%.

Maybe read the acutal study the article you posted referenced properly

I’m more than happy with the study.
When you find a study of equal quality, that supports your fringe views then you’ll have credibility.
Otherwise you have little to offer, and the criticism is hollow.

 

[North1411]

I’m more than happy with the study.
When you find a study of equal quality, that supports your fringe views then you’ll have credibility.
Otherwise you have little to offer, and the criticism is hollow.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open...

doi.org

Is the BMJ ok for you?

If you are ok with the study you posted and you use data like that to extrapolate your claims then there is no point discussing this with you.

The facts are the studies they published were designed to reduce the risk of the vaccine. The one you posted is case and point. Using data in very narrow windows to get an end result they are happy with.

If you are using studies like that to claim they 99.9965% safe then good luck to you. I am not going to reply again there is no point

 

[No SPIN]

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

Revelations of poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial raise questions about data integrity and regulatory oversight. Paul D Thacker reports In autumn 2020 Pfizer’s chairman and chief executive, Albert Bourla, released an open...

doi.org

Is the BMJ ok for you?

And ?
What’s this got to do with the 99.9965% safety, proven by independent research.
This article doesn’t change the research I’ve linked.

 

[DesertRoo]

EXCLUSIVE: Whatever happened to Pfizer's covid vaccine trial in pregnant women?

The trial began in 2021. But over a year after the last woman was enrolled, the company just admitted it still doesn't have the data.

maryannedemasi.substack.com

EXCLUSIVE: Whatever happened to Pfizer's covid vaccine trial in pregnant women?​

The trial began in 2021. But over a year after the last woman was enrolled, the company just admitted it still doesn't have the data.​

Animal studies
Pfizer’s official product labelling information for pregnant women refers only to animal studies, stating “No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development, or postnatal development were reported”.

But a freedom of information (FOI) request to the Australian’s drug regulator in June 2021, shows the study was only carried out in 44 rats (22 injected with 30µg of mRNA vaccine, 22 injected with saline).

The study found the vaccine led to a statistically significant doubling in fetal loss (9.77% mRNA vs 4.09% saline), but Pfizer concluded that the difference between the two groups was “not biologically meaningful.”

 

[North1411]

And ?
What’s this got to do with the 99.9965% safety, proven by independent research.

I did say I wouldn't reply but that is a good question. First of all you don't prove anything in science you demonstrate it. Secondly your study narrowed the window of adverse events to 2 conditions in a 21 day window. That has 3 massive problems.
1. Were the hospital accurately reporting adverse events
2. If a person had myocarditis or percarditis on day 22, not included
3. If they had any other reaction like facial palsy or say even death, not included

It is a very poor study designed for a specific outcome once you read beyond the abstract and read the method

Now I am off to watch the footy, have a good life

 

[No SPIN]

I did say I wouldn't reply but that is a good question. First of all you don't prove anything in science you demonstrate it. Secondly your study narrowed the window of adverse events to 2 conditions in a 21 day window. That has 3 massive problems.
1. Were the hospital accurately reporting adverse events
2. If a person had myocarditis or percarditis on day 22, not included
3. If they had any other reaction like facial palsy or say even death, not included

It is a very poor study designed for a specific outcome once you read beyond the abstract and read the method

Now I am off to watch the footy, have a good life

I think the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology would have considered your concerns before publishing the paper.
So again you offer deflections, rather than evidence to support your fringe views.

 

[DesertRoo]

I think the prestigious Journal of the American College of Cardiology would have considered your concerns before publishing the paper.
So again you offer deflections, rather than evidence to support your fringe views.

did you bother to read what he posted?
Or was your default to go on the attack, regardless of what was posted.

 

[DesertRoo]

 

[No SPIN]

did you bother to read what he posted?
Or was your default to go on the attack, regardless of what was posted.

He’s trying to discredit a study on baseless grounds - what’s there to miss?

 

[DesertRoo]

He’s trying to discredit a study on baseless grounds - what’s there to miss?

On baseless grounds?
Did you even bother to read it, his quote came directly from the study.

 

[No SPIN]

On baseless grounds?
Did you even bother to read it, his quote came directly from the study.

Baseless - given the study is Peer reviewed, if those issues were a legitimate failure of the study, it would never have been published.
He’s clutching at straws.

 

[DesertRoo]

Baseless - given the study is Peer reviewed, if those issues were a legitimate failure of the study, it would never have been published.
He’s clutching at straws.

Are you drunk?

 

[No SPIN]

Are you drunk?

No - I just understand BS and inane rebuttals when I see them.
Unlike yourself I understand the difference between quality research, and tweets from charlatans and schiffs.

 

[DesertRoo]

No - I just understand BS and inane rebuttals when I see them.
Unlike yourself I understand the difference between quality research, and tweets from charlatans and schiffs.

Hahaha are you sure?
He simply pointed out the limitation of the study, that the authors acknowledge and you seem to be hell bent on trying to say that the limitation doesn’t exist because it’s peer reviewed.

 

[ferball]

Stop being a flog - I don’t make up numbers.

Study below - 12.6/million for Pfizer and 35.6 Moderna. I said 12-26/mill but it’s actually 13-36/mill.

Risk of rare heart inflammation may be higher after Moderna than Pfizer COVID vaccine

www.cidrap.umn.edu

Can you link to the actual study, that's a series of press releases that all link to each other.

Government - US as an example gave huge sums of money to accelerate development of Vaccines. Eg Operation Warp Speed which cost $US18 Billion.

re the bolded - given the reporting on the quality of some of the work done developing those vaccines there should be serious questions raised about that money.

 

[No SPIN]

Can you link to the actual study, that's a series of press releases that all link to each other.




re the bolded - given the reporting on the quality of some of the work done developing those vaccines there should be serious questions raised about that money.

There’s a link to the study in article.
When looked in the context of live saved by the jab, most would consider cost secondary.

 

[No SPIN]

Hahaha are you sure?
He simply pointed out the limitation of the study, that the authors acknowledge and you seem to be hell bent on trying to say that the limitation doesn’t exist because it’s peer reviewed.

If you were familiar with Clinical Papers you would know that authors are compelled to outline “limitations” of the research.
In this case, the limitations were not important enough for the Peer review process to reject the paper - they were inconsequential.